Pages

Jan 4, 2016

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School

“Sexual morality — as society, in its
extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible.
I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”

- Sigmund Freud, 1908.

“There will be other forms in
addition to our classic marriage…We will experience a broader spectrum
of socially accepted forms of sexual life.”

-Volkmar Sigusch, 2015.

Volkmar Sigusch

Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO
readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional
attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have
encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly
gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has
come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term
‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there
is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel
themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says
you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind
inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural
and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present
and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,”
only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one
undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy
concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that
group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations
lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing
measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like
‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,”
helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of
children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of
possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this
brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are
allegedly valid and equal.

This ideology, militant in both theory and execution, stands in
opposition to the fact that healthy sexual relationships between males
and females stand so far above the other “options” as to represent a
gulf, rather than a spectrum, in human behavior. As F. Roger Devlin has
so incisively pointed out,
heterosexuality is “the natural life cycle of our species” (and all
other species) while homosexuality is merely “a way for a few people
with exotic tastes to achieve orgasm.” Any argument of equivalence must
necessarily be preoccupied with endless abstractions, particularly
abstractions surrounding the nature of romantic love, in order to push
the debate away from this all-consuming biological fact.

In the same way that we witnessed the tremendous push for “marriage
equality,” we have also witnessed the recent championing of those
individuals who suffer from the unfortunate delusion that they have been
born into the wrong body. While “transgenderism” is a severe mental
illness by any definition of the term, the healthy and the normal are
now lowered to the same level as these, and other, extremely
dysfunctional people. Cultural relativism, once tactically deployed
within the West in order to create an artificial parity between Western
greatness and the meagre achievements of less advanced races and
cultures, is now being deployed within our race and culture to
create an artificial parity between the healthy, and the lifestyles of
the degenerate and the insane. Much as in the promotion of degenerate
art, the end result in both instances is the lowering of the healthy and
the superior, and the raising up of the deformed, the sick, and the
demented.

The image on the left is that
of a pregnant woman suffering from the delusion that she is male. This
“family” of the future is intended to achieve parity with, if not
superiority over, the healthy family unit of old pictured on the right —
the very key to our existence

But who precisely is introducing these terms and ideas, and thus
engineering dramatic change in Western society? In our attempt to answer
this question, we might first return to Volkmar Sigusch. Sigusch, a
German, is a self-described “sexologist,” physician and sociologist. As
founder and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung (Journal for Sexual Research),
and Director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for
Sexual Science) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt from 1973 to 2006,
Sigusch has been described by Der Spiegel
as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the
1960s.” The reasons why the young would-be physician evolved into a
cultural radical are quite easy to surmise. After fleeing East Germany,
Sigusch studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at Frankfurt. I
posit the argument that it was the latter discipline that truly shaped
Sigusch and did most to determine his future work. I argue this because he studied philosophy under none other than Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno,
both of whom had by that date returned from the United States and
re-established the notorious Frankfurt Institute for Social Research.
Sigusch, a pioneer in the ongoing sexual revolution, is a Frankfurt
School protégé.

The following analysis is concerned with the ongoing role of the
Jewish-dominated “Culture of Critique” in advancing theories and trends
designed to atomize our society. In particular it focusses on Jewish
intellectual and political support for the sexually abnormal and
explains it as an extension and product of the Frankfurt School’s view
that “the unique role of Judaism in world history was to vindicate the concept of difference against the homogenizing forces thought to represent the essence of Western civilization. (My emphasis) ”[1]
Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy
Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an
indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades
of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing
Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts,
Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western
homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of
pluralism.

By subtly supporting the position of the socially and sexually
deviant, these Jewish figures could gain acceptance or inconspicuousness
in the newly atomized society, while simultaneously undermining the
very health of the homogenous nation. As MacDonald has noted, the
Frankfurt School offered one major prescription for the sick Western
world: “radical individualism and the acceptance of pluralism. People
have an inherent right to be different from others and to be accepted by
others as different. Indeed, to become differentiated from others is to
achieve the highest level of humanity.”[2]
Following from this, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt
School ideology one would expect to find endless terms for endless
identities, genders, lifestyle choices, cliques and subcultures.

An excellent example of this nightmare becoming reality is one of the
latest terms concocted within our atomized society: Otherkin.
According to Google, Otherkin are people who identify as partially or
entirely non-human. Some say that they are, in spirit if not in body,
not human. In any normal, healthy society this nonsense would be
regarded as puerile or insane, and it certainly wouldn’t be indulged.
But today, in the wake of Frankfurt School victory, the Otherkin
community is just one of several growing realms for the bizarre.

Equally, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt School ideology
one would expect to find that those most markedly different from the
normal and healthy would be held up as alleged examples of the best of
humanity. In this regard we need only point to the astonishing and
gratuitous plaudits heaped upon Bruce Jenner, and his selection as
“Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. These developments
should rightly be seen as the triumph of the Frankfurt School. However,
alongside, and running through, the Frankfurt School were several other
Jewish intellectual currents. Among the most important were Freudian
psychoanalysis and Jewish sexology. It is to the twisted and complex
history of the latter that we now turn our attention, and we will follow
its path from its deepest origins to the activities of Volkmar
“Cisgender” Sugusch in the present. It is the history of the engineered
decomposition of a once healthy society.

Sexology: Its Non-Jewish Currents

As with several Frankfurt school protégés, Volkmar Sigusch found
himself being steered into precociously high positions from a young age.
In 1972, he became the then-youngest German professor of medicine at
the University of Frankfurt, when he was awarded the first-ever
professorship in “sexology.” The “discipline” of sexology itself
deserves some discussion. Firstly, it cannot be described as a “Jewish
discipline” in the same way that psychoanalysis can be. Rather, it was a
discipline that started with both Jewish and non-Jewish roots, being
eventually fully co-opted by Jews and used for the furtherance of Jewish
interests. The first serious academic study involving sexual pathology
and psychiatry is generally attributed to the Austro-German psychiatrist
Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840–1902) and his Psychopathia Sexualis (1886).
In this work, Krafft-Ebing classified homosexuality as a perversion and
“most sexologists following his lead judged it pathological.”[3]
One of those following Krafft-Ebing’s lead, and consequently one of the
founders of modern sexology was the Englishman Havelock Ellis
(1859–1939).

Havelock Ellis

Havelock Ellis pioneered the non-Jewish strand of sexology by
building on the roots of the earliest German-language writing on sexual
behavior among humans. Among the most crucial of these early writings
was that of von Krafft-Ebing. In Psychopathia Sexualis the
German set the tone and structure for non-Jewish investigations into
homosexuality by arguing that there were essentially four stages of
“sexual inversion,” his term for homosexuality.[4]
The first stage is a simple perversion of the sexual instinct, which
results in no deformity of the personality itself. As an example of this
type we might point to contemporaries like Douglas Murray or Jack Donovan who exhibit no noticeably unusual character traits beyond the inversion of their sexual instinct. The second stage involves defeminatio in
which the whole personality of the individual undergoes a change of
disposition in harmony with the changed sexual instinct. In these cases
we see the effeminate, conspicuously perverted, types who are the main
vectors of sexually transmitted diseases among inverts. The third stage
involves a transition to metamorphosis sexualis paranoica, in
which the subject at times suffers from the delusion that there has been
an actual change of sex. Finally, von Krafft-Ebing argued that the
fourth stage was full-blown metamorphosis sexualis paranoica,
involving systematic delusions as to change in sex. In this category we
may place the now much-celebrated Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

What united the early German scholars and the slightly later
English-language pioneers of similar studies was the categorization of
these behaviors as psychological disorders. Additionally, these studies
were carried out during periods when birth rates were declining and, as
such, the field merged more than a little with that of eugenics.
Havelock Ellis himself was Vice-President of the Eugenics Education
Society, the forerunner of the Galton Institute. Ellis took von
Krafft-Ebing’s work further in his own Sexual Inversion (1901), in which he argued that homosexuals and those experiencing metamorphosis sexualis paranoica were
(v) “congenital subjects of abnormality,” and “suffering intensely from
abnormal organization.” Ellis concurred with von Krafft-Ebing (37) that
such a disorder was “a functional sign of degeneration, as a partial
manifestation of a neuropathic and psychopathic state.”

Ellis also went further than von Krafft-Ebing by attempting to
explain why efforts should be undertaken by the state to prevent such
behaviors becoming accepted and thus more commonplace. In other words,
he opposed the public culture of homosexuality that has become
increasingly pre-dominant since the 1960s counter-cultural revolution.
Like many modern-day conservative commentators, and indeed the state of
Russia today, Ellis argued that sexual inversion was “organic” only in
very few cases but that its prevalence could be exacerbated in a given
society due to environmental factors, particularly propaganda indicating
to the otherwise normal, young, and impressionable that such behaviors
and lifestyles are fashionable. One of these factors was urban life
itself which (30) “renders easier the exhibition and satisfaction of
this as of all other forms of perversion.” Also, although both
Parmenides and Aristotle argued that heredity played a large role in the
homosexuality of the Greeks, and more especially the Dorians, Ellis
argued that the prevalence of sexual inversion in Greek society was
rooted more in the human “herd instinct” and was due more (29) to a
“state of social feeling that, however it originated, induced a large
proportion of the ordinary population to adopt homosexuality as a
fashion.” Once a society adopted this fashion, it contributed (239) to
the “demoralizing of the manhood of a nation,” and was a sign of
impending national or civilizational collapse into decadence and
despondency. The goal was thus to avoid a situation in which such
behaviors were “normalized” and, more crucially, to prevent the
behaviors associated with these psychological disorders from becoming
fashionable.

Ellis’ approach to the abnormality of sexual inversion was far from
totalitarian. He argued (193) that little could be done to help the
congenital invert but that “sound social hygiene should render difficult
the acquisition of homosexual perversity.” Homosexuals should be
prevented from coming into close contact with children since his studies
showed (199) that this reduced the incidence of “acquired perversity in
others” via abuse and ensuing psychological disturbance. Adhering even
to just this measure would act rapidly to reduce “artificial
homosexuality among the general population.” Ellis argued that it was
both cruel and undesirable for society to make congenital inverts act
like those around them, and especially undesirable for them to be
encouraged to procreate. Ellis collected data showing (198) that the
descendants of sexual inverts tended to constitute families of “neurotic
and failing stock.” Rather Ellis believed (198) that occurrences of
sexual inversion may be a way for Nature to begin closing a faulty
branch of the family tree: “The tendency to sexual inversion in
eccentric and neurotic families seems merely to be Nature’s merciful
method of winding up a concern which, from her point of view, has ceased
to be profitable.” For sexual inverts, according to Ellis, “the
inadvisability of parenthood remains.”

For Ellis, debates about the tolerance of homosexual behavior should
be lifted from the moral and religious sphere and placed squarely in the
sphere of demographics and national health. However, he noted that the
two spheres (206) overlapped in times of demographic crisis:

Wherever the enlargement of the population becomes a
strongly-felt social need — as it was among the Jews in their exaltation
of family-life, and as it was when the European nations were
constituted, — there homosexuality has been regarded as a crime, even
punishable with death. The Incas of ancient Peru, in the fury of their
devastation, even destroyed a whole town where sodomy had once been
detected. [5]

Particularly relevant to our contemporary society, Ellis also
astutely pointed out (206) that “there seems to be a certain
relationship between the social reaction against homosexuality and
against infanticide. Where the one is regarded leniently and favorably,
there generally the other is also; where the one is stamped out, the
other is usually stamped out.” Ellis’ astute remarks on the context
behind the Jewish outlawing of homosexuality, and the use of violence
against it by ancient cultures such as the Peruvians, bear further
reflection. This is particularly the case given that there is a strain
of inverts within our movement who propagandize
their cause by weakly arguing that antipathy towards sexual inversion
is due to the influence of “Judeo-Christian morals” rather than
ethnically universal concerns around demographic health.

This demographic concern was vital to the interpretations and views
of non-Jewish sexologists. Since homosexuality, permitted to spread via
fashion, leading to “acquired perversion” in the young, is socially
linked to acceptance of abortion and infanticide, it acts to “check the
population” and should thus be controlled and quarantined in a state
that wishes to improve its demographic health.

The means of quarantine suggested by Ellis were not harsh or
unreasonable. Society should refrain (215) from crushing the subject of
abnormality with shame but, in an eerie premonition of the “Pride
parades,” he argued that society should never allow the invert to “flout
his perversion in its face and assume that he is of finer clay than the
vulgar herd.” Since the genetic dead-end facing inverts was, in Ellis’
view, penalty enough, society should confine its approach to the
sexually abnormal to the “protection of the helpless member of society
against the invert.” Essentially, Ellis’ advice was to decriminalize the
behavior of inverts and end societal shame surrounding it, but also to
prevent inverts from flouting their abnormality, and from having
physical, pedagogical or ideological access to children. Such was the
approach of a broad swathe of opinion in mainstream (non-Jewish)
sexology up to Weimar period. And this is largely the position taken by
the Russian state today.
The research and theories on homosexuality initiated by Kraft-Ebbing
and Ellis are more than a century old, so there is no reason to take
them as gospel truth. However, this strain of research, had it retained
its dominance, may well have perpetuated an adaptive public culture that
privileged heterosexuality, male-female bonding, and the rearing of
children.

There was, however, another strain of thought within the embryonic
field of sexology, and it is to this strain that the modern toleration
and promotion of sexual delinquency owes its most significant debt. This
strain can be identified as a Jewish intellectual concoction because
its four key thinkers and ethnically activists were the
nineteenth-century German-Jewish psychiatrists Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch,
Magnus Hirschfeld and Albert Eulenberg, with able support from other
Jewish figures like Hermann Joseph Lowenstein, Julius Wolf, Max Marcuse,
and Eduard Bernstein. Despite some occasional minor disagreements
between them, these Jewish sexologists and social commentators were
united in advancing theories of sexual inversion that moved away from
interpretations involving themes like degeneration, demographic decline
and biological reality, and instead towards Talmudic abstractions
involving the nature of romantic love and the allegedly fluid nature of
gender and sex. As one might predict, running through all of their works
is a clear preoccupation with the need for “tolerance” and social
pluralism, the denial of human difference, and a fanatical opposition
towards non-Jewish attempts to develop racial science. It is to the
specific theories and machinations of these individuals that we now turn
our attention.

Notes:[1][1] K. MacDonald, The
Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (2002), 161.[2] Ibid, 164.[3] E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 7.[4] R. von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis (Eighth Edition, 1893), 188.
[5] For Ellis as an evolutionist, a good indication of the pathology of
homosexuality is that it is a reproductive dead end. Homosexuality has
always been a puzzle to evolutionary biologists given that same-sex
attraction would tend to lower reproductive success. However, since
homosexuality has generally been stigmatized in historical societies,
men with homosexual tendencies often married and procreated in order to
avoid the penalties of being publicly homosexual — Ellis’ example of
Orthodox Judaism being a case in point given the very intense pressures
to have children combined with official condemnation of homosexuality in
traditional Jewish society. This would tend to keep genes for
homosexuality in the population, and perhaps even result in high levels
of homosexuality, as some observers
have noted to the case among Jews. In the contemporary world where
homosexuality has become far more accepted, pressures for marriage and
family are greatly lessened, constituting a selection pressure against
genes predisposing for homosexuality. Ironically therefore, the public
culture of homosexuality actually results in selection against genes
predisposing for homosexuality, even while (if Ellis is correct)
encouraging some to be homosexual who would not be so inclined if the
culture retained sanctions against homosexuality.